Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Isn't it a shame, that in our time the miraculous is so often consigned to the dustbin of superstition? Years ago, we wrote about the "house of tears" in the Houston area. This is a home where many icons allegedly have wept oil -- oil some say heals. A priest at a local Coptic Orthodox Church, Father Bishoy George, tells us there is no doubt that it all started with the legitimate and astonishing healing of a boy. The tears began November 11, 1992, we learn from local media, when a woman named Nahed Ayoub momentarily left her leukemia-stricken son, Isaac, resting in the bedroom. On one wall was a small portrait of Jesus, a gift she had received years ago from a friend.

As we reported, "On Monday, November 11, 1991, Isaac became very sick. While lying in his parent's bed, about 2:30 p.m., mumbling some prayers and looking to a portrait of Jesus Christ hanging on the Eastern wall of the bedroom, he saw the eyes of Jesus in the picture moving and the figure of Jesus protruding out. He screamed, calling for his mother. Nahed came running and examined the picture. There was an oily liquid shedding like tears from the eyes of Jesus. [Another priest named] Father Ishak was called to verify this unusual occurrence. What Father Ishak saw was no different than what the Ayoub family had seen. They all thought that this was a sign of a miracle that could have been happening to Isaac.

"Isaac, who turned 13 on Christmas Eve, said he was reaching for a tissue when he noticed that the eyes of Jesus of the picture followed him. He ran to his mother," reported the Houston Chronicle. "'He was screaming and screaming,' said Nahed Ayoub, co-owner of a downtown restaurant. 'I tried to calm him down. He said the eyes of Jesus were moving. He said, "Don't go back to the room." But I left him and I put my hand on the picture and my palm filled with the oily tears.' The family was frightened by the heavy flow of tears, [the father] Tharwat Ayoub said. A veterinarian for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he works in Shreveport, Louisiana, and commutes to his Houston home on weekends."

We'll be in Shreveport in December for a retreat and would love to visit!

The picture was taken to St. Mark's church and prayed over by clergy in case it was the product of evil.

The boy's physician, Dr. Atef I. Rizkallah, wrote a testimony declaring it to be a miracle (from what we understand, Isaac had been sent home from Texas Children's, because there was nothing further they could do, and told he had three months to live).

It was stage-four leukemia. But with God, there are no "stages" (nor time-frames).

We hear another report that the bedroom at one point filled with light and Jesus "came out of it" to touch him. We have tried, thus far without success, to reach the family. It was after the light and change in the picture that it began to exude oil. Soon, other images in the home did the same, as did those brought there by visitors.

At our last retreat, in Ohio, a woman from Pennsylvania who had been to the "house of tears" brought an image of Mary with Infant that then shed tears; she showed us a video clip and the tears seem to twinkle: quite remarkable. She has a strong medical background and observed that, at the same time that it seems more and more difficult for people to be "awestruck," people have a deep desire to know that God still does miracles! Jacqueline emphasizes that although the original miracle was authenticated by the Coptic Orthodox Church, the tears on her picture -- the twinkling -- have not been investigated and thus each is to use their own discernment.

"While it may be tempting to attribute the twinkling to the movement of air or vibrations," she says, "all sources of possible air movement were removed and vibration is not possible because the picture was sitting on an immovable surface."

For our discernment indeed.

"No doubt," Father George insisted to us, referring to Nahed. "It's true. It was really a great miracle."

She herself is relieved of serious headaches when she uses tears from the picture.

Below are some examples of statues and pictures brought there.

This is Jacqueline's twinkling picture:

At the retreat, Jacqueline also gave us some beautiful photographs of a pilgrim Fatima statue she had in her home, with reflections she said were unusual and not caused by anything apparent (like a prism or stained glass). At any rate, Our Lady of Fatima: Her month has arrived!

"Yes," she says. "No reflections from any prism or stained glass. There is a regular window in my living room which has some brief sun early in the morning. There are large trees in front of the window which shade it the rest of the day I will send you a picture of the window. As I state, I sit there nearly every morning and drink my tea and I have never seen any other rainbows on the wall. There are no prisms or angles in the glass at all. Just a storm window and the glass window. No bevels in the glass."

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger were in material heresy for accepting an irrational version of Vatican Council II , when there was a rational choice unknown to them.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct in rejecting the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II . However he too was unaware of the choice. Archbishop Lefebvre knew Vatican Council II was a break with the past but he did not know that the precise cause was the irrational premise and inference , accepting Cushingism and rejecting Feeneyism.The onus for pointing out the error lay with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican. Instead they excommunicated the archbishop.

Since Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger could not get Archbishop Lefebvre to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand column.They accepted the heretical version and they excommunicated him for his correct rejection of Vatican Council II with the false premise.Now for canonical status, after so many years, the SSPX is expected to accept Vatican Council II with the same Magisterial Heresy i.e with the irrational premise, Cushingism and the right hand column.The SSPX bishops need to identify and avoid the Magisterial Heresy and accept Vatican Council II without the premise and inference, with Feeneyism and the left hand column. Then they will be in accord with the perennial Magisterium. Pre and post 1949 magisterium will be accord.The traditionalists and sedevacantists were correct when they said Vatican Council II was a break with the past.They now have to say Vatican Council II is not a break with the past when interpreted without the premise and inference.Vatican Council II is then acceptable. It's the same Council but now it is traditional with the old ecclesiology.-Lionel Andrades

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Her father was expelled by Boston College because of the Magisterial Heresy.

Sr. Marie Therese, MICM is the eldest daughter of Dr. Fakhri Maluf a Catholic professor at Boston College. He was expelled by the Jesuits when the Jesuit Rector and Provinicial made a factual mistake - and the Magisterium in Rome supported them!

After some 70 years we now know that the Magisterium made a mistake.It was magisterial heresy in the Catholic Church from 1949.Dr.Fakhri Maluf held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and was supported by Fr. Leonard Feeney.Archbishop Richard Cushing approved the Boston College expulsion of the professors. For him there were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.For Cardinal Cushing being saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood, all referred to persons who were in Heaven without the baptism of water.This was also the understanding of the liberal Jesuit theologians in Boston.For them there were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma on salvation.What they did not realize was that if there were exceptions to the dogma then these cases would be known and seen to be exceptions. They did not ask themself how could people in Heaven be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in the present times( 1940's).How can non existing cases in their reality be exceptions to all needing to be 'card carrying members' of the Church for salvation?But them perhaps they knew all this but went ahead with their irrationality.The late Senator Edward Kennedy wrote in his memoirs that he was present when his brother Robert Kennedy phoned Archbiship Cushing and told him to do something about Fr. Leonard Feeney.Pope Pius XII kept silent over this issue.Sr.Marie Therese's father remained expelled by a Catholic college and Fr. Leonard Feeney remained excommunicated and the Magisterium did not announce that people in Heaven could not be exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Magisterium after 1949 made a factual mistake.An injustice was done to Sr. Marie Therese' father.-Lionel Andrades

Monday, September 28, 2015

Medjugorje pilgrims surprised by bishop’s order…

Fr Leon Pereira OP, the new pastor co-ordinating english-speaking Masses at Medjugorje, has informed pilgrims that the Mostar-Duvno bishop, Ratko Perić, has given orders for pilgrims to receive Holy Communion on the tongue only.

Making the announcement at midday Mass on Sunday, Fr Leon said: “The local bishop has given orders that Holy Communion is to be received on the tongue only, in his diocese. We must respect the local Bishop and I ask my brother priests to respect the authority of the local bishop and be obedient, as this is his directive and this is their local custom and we can’t do what we do back in our own countries.”

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentInstructionRedemptionis SacramentumOn certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist91. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. [177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.92. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, [178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful. [179]177: Code of Canon Law, can. 843 § 1; cf. can. 915.178: Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 161.179: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Dubium: Notitiae 35 (1999) pp. 160-161.

The SSPX bishops still don't know that there was a precise doctrinal mistake made by the contemporary Magisterium. A wrong premise and inference was used,in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It resulted in the rejection of the Council by the SSPX.It was followed by the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops over this doctrinal issue.

Since 1949 the contemporary Magisterium is in heresy and the sedevacantists and traditionalists are correct doctrine-wise. Due to the Magisterial Heresy, there is a break with the 'perennial Magisterium', the pre 1949 magisterium.

Pope John Paul II made a doctrinal mistake. He used an irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II and wanted Archbishop Lefebvre to do the same.

He was interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism.He was using the irrational right hand column and wanted the archbishop to do the same.

The traditionalists and sedevacantists at that time were also using Cushingism, the irrational premise and inference and the right hand column to interpret Vatican Council II- and they rejected Vatican Council , while Pope John Paul II accepted it.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger , Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), instead of clarifying all this,made the same error and then approved the excommunication.

This was Magisterial Heresy since they were rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.They were rejecting the Nicene Creed ( one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and not three) and the Athanasius Creed ( outside the Church there is no salvation).They were rejecting a Vatican Council II which is really traditional and in agreement with the old ecclesiology.

Today if the SSPX and the sedevacantists accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism, the Left Hand Column and without the irrational premise and inference, they can still hold on to the old ecclesiology.They do not have to reject Vatican Council II.They can have it both ways.It can be Vatican Council II and the old ecclesiology.

The SSPX should ask the CDF for an apology on this issue.The CDF was not fair to Archbiship Lefebvre. It was their responsibility to explain what was correct doctrine.

Monday, September 28, 2015

In the last video I showed how the irrational reasoning is used in Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome.This is done especially in Ecclesiology courses. At the Legionaries of Christ University (UPRA) in Rome, the Urbaniana University, the Pontifical University of St.Thomas Aquinas Rome, the St.John Lateran University and the Benedictine Pontifical university of St.Anselm in Rome. I mentioned that it was because of the old ecclesiology being linked to the Traditional Latin Mass at the Franciscans of the Immaculate Philosophy seminary in Rome, that Pope Francis closed it down.Even for Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary at Econe,Switzerland, Vatican Council II is not ecclesiocentric since he assumes there are exceptions to the dogma.For him B would contradict A and he would be interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. He uses the irrational premise and inference.It is the same error being made at the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome.

Like Fr. Gleize there are many traditionalists and sedevacantists, who like the liberals, use the irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. In this video I would like to cite some of them.Maria Guarini, Father Stefano of Radio Vobiscum also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI make the same mistake on Vatican Council II

Maria Guarini intervieved by Father Stefano of the SSPX for Radio Vobiscum, also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI, makes the same mistake on Vatican Council II.

Maria Guarini an Italian scholar, author and traditionalist, only understands Vatican Council II interpretated with an irrational premise. So for her Lumen Gentium would be a contradiction to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it is for P.Serafino Lanzetta in his new book. For them Lumen Gentium 8,16 and 14 refer to visible in the flesh cases and so it is a contradiction of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. In other words, those who are saved in 'invincible ignorance', 'elements of sanctification and truth' or 'subsist it ' in other Christian communities,are known to us, they are physically visible to be explicit exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.They can see the dead now in Heaven?

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta FFI, former Prior of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in Florence, Italy, presented his book on Vatican Council II (Sept.25,2014) in Florence and was not be aware of the Council being interpreted with an irrational premise, this being the cause of its break with Tradition.

It is because of the premise of the dead man being visible and being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus that a pastoral Vatican Council II contradicts dogmatic teachings on salvation and other religions.

The title of his book is "The Second Vatican Council: a Pastoral Council" .For him Vatican Council II ( with the premise) is a break with Tradition. This is true but he will not mention that it is a break with Tradition because of the false premise .

_____________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 says 'The same declaration (LG. 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' and the SSPX bishop concludes that 'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.'

II. An ecumenical conception of the Church

The expression “subsistit in” (Lumen gentium, 8) means that the Church of Christ has in the separate Christian communities a presence and an action that are distinct from the Church of Christ’s subsistence in the Catholic Church.(Lionel: If there are non Catholics saved in other religions or Christian communities they are not known to us in 2014.So these invisible cases are not explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.)Taken in this sense, the expression denies the strict necessity of identifying the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church,(Lionel:It is because the SSPX assumes that these cases theoretically in Heaven are visible on earth that it seems that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church. The problem is with the SSPX and the not Lumen Gentium 8)which had always been taught, especially by Pius XII, both in Mystici corporis[2] and Humani generis[3]. (Lionel: In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII did not state that those saved in other religions or Christian communities are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church.(Lionel:Yes. So how is LG 8 an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Where does LG 8 state that these cases are physically visible to us or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?)

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.(Lionel:Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that there could be a Hindu saved in Tibet. He would be saved not by his religion but by Jesus and the Church.SSPX is now begins to contradict its founder) The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3) (Lionel:Is the SSPX saying that these cases are known, visible and objective for us and so they are a contradiction to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?)

Lionel:

Since the SSPX follows the theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible, objective etc. So they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Similarly they assume that non Christians saved in their religions are visible,objective, seen in the flesh in 2014. So they are exceptions to traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Possibly Bishop Fellay will issue another Letter to Friends and Benefactors with the same error.There still has been no clarification on this point since April 2014.

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.

Lionel:

How can they irreconcilable with the dogma No salvation outside the Church, when we do not know any of these cases in real life.I can affirm implicit for us baptism of desire along with the dogma. It was the Letter of the Holy Office which made this factual mistake, being repeated by the SSPX Superior General.

A separated community cannot cooperate with the action of God, since its separation is a resistance to the Holy Ghost. The truths and the sacraments that it may maintain can have good effects only in opposition to the erroneous principles on which these communities are founded and which separate them from the Mystical Body of the Catholic Church, whose visible head is the Vicar of Christ.

The declaration Nostra aetate says that non-Christian religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” although such men must find in Christ “the fullness of religious life;” it also “regards with sincere respect those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and doctrines.” (NA, 2) Such a claim must be criticized just as the preceding one.(Lionel: Since these cases are visible to Bishop Fellay . They are explicit exceptions!!!) When coupled with heresy or schism, the sacraments, the partial truths of the Faith, and Scripture are in a state of separation from the Mystical Body. That is why, even though using such means, the sect as such cannot be a mediator of grace or contribute towards salvation, for it is deprived of supernatural grace. The same must be said for the ways of thinking, living, and acting that are found in non-Christian religions.(Lionel: It is Bishop Fellay who is denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with his alleged exceptions.He is interpreting Vatican Council II (NA 2,LG 8 etc) by assuming the dead now saved are visible to us in 2014. Then he infers that these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.)

Even if a pope claims that we can see the dead who are living exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is irrationality and heresy).

We do not know any one in 2015 saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance - and without the baptism of water.Not a single such case is known or can be known. Since people in Heaven are not visible and known to us. With or without the baptism of water they are invisible for us.So the Magisterium in 1949 made an objective mistake.It was a mistake when they assumed that being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance referred to known cases.Then the Magisterium inferred that these 'known cases' were explicit exceptions to the tradtional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center at Boston, USA.The error was then carried over into Vatican Council II. Whosoever,
therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would
refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...Catechumenswho, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be
incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With
love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

Therefore though God in ways known to
Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith
without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)...
-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Those saved in 'inculpable ignorance' should not have been mentioned in Ad Gentes 7. Those who 'know' or those who are in ignorance' and are saved with or without the baptism of water are known only to God. Here in Lumen Gentium 14 it is being implied that we know these cases and can judge. They would not be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was a mistake to have mentioned this in Lumen Gentium 14.We have to be aware that this is a reference to hypothetican cases followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and so they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
Also it is implied that there are now three known baptisms, water, desire and invincible ignorance when the Nicene Creed mentions only one known baptism, the baptism of water.
With LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc it is inferred that there are still more 'baptisms' and all of them are without the baptism of water. The text does not state it but this is the Magisterial inference made.
The Magisterium during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII did not correct the error. Also for some 19 years the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted. He remained excommunicated even during Vatican Council II. The popes did nothing to defend him.In public they did not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma.Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church were issued assuming there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The International Theological Commission has made the same mistake in two theological papers.While the SSPX theologians and the sedevacantists CMRI, MHFM etc, have also made the same error as the liberals.-Lionel Andrades

Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc are not explicit for us human beings.So they are not exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2015, they do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology and the Feeneyite version of the dogma.

This was not known to the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who interpreted Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being explicit and a break with the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There position on Vatican Council II was irrational. It was a break with Tradition. It was heretical.Since in ignorance they did not realize their fault they excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for not accepting their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. Neither did they explain to him that there was a choice. LG 16 etc could be interpreted as being hypothetical and known only to God. So it would be irrelevant to the old ecclesiology.

Based on this error they supported a new ecclesiology and a new theology, a fantasy theology which suggested that there is salvation outside the Church and these cases are known to us human beings, or were known to human beings in the past.

So the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not based on the teachings of the Catholic Church but a new doctrine created with an irrational premise and inference.

The irrational premise was that we could see and know persons in Heaven, and that these persons were there without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. The irrational inference was that these 'known cases' were explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) to avoid Hell.So the thrice defined dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted by the Church Councils, popes and saints,was made redundant.

It was an innocent error by the Magisterium. Since even Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of the error.

During the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI there were SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks and the SSPX professor of ecclesiology Fr. Jean Marie Gleize was also unaware of the doctrinal error.-Lionel Andrades

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Today after a long time I heard the Gospel preached at Sunday Mass. It was Mass in Italian. I repeat. It was not the Traditional Latin Mass.

The priest spoke on Gehenna.Hell. He also cautioned the congregation, saying "Don't say p. XYZ is speaking on Hell. It is here in the Gospel today".

He spoke for sometime on the word Gehenna first asking the congregation if they know what it meant.

He spoke frankly and no doubt with charity for his listeners. He said those who go there are burnt ( scorched) spiritually.Of course the fire is not there like on earth. In Hell ( or in Heaven) we have our spiritual bodies which feel-just like on earth.He said there is a remorse of conscience. He asked them if they knew what was meant by the phrase ' where the worm does not die'.In Gehenna or Heaven the body does not die.

When people are told not to sin or they will go to Hell, he said, they do not listen and want to continue with their pleasures.All right you can continue with your pleasures, he mentioned, but you will go to Gehenna after the Judgement of God.

I was sitting upright.All ears.I could not believe I was hearing the Gospel being preached in a Catholic Church.

Yesterday at another church where the sound system was bad and the visiting priest spoke fast, I could make out that he was saying we should not be smug in thinking there was exclusive salvation in the Church and non Catholics could not be saved.It was the same Gospel passage as that of today.This was a typical Novus Ordo church and Novus Ordo liberal Mass.Even the Rector there does not affirm the Catholic Faith, especially on salvation. For him it is Jesus without the necessity of the Catholic Church.In this way he protects his career as a professor and also his lifestyle at this church in central Rome.He is not going to say most people are going to Gehenna without 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II).And if he cannot affirm the teachings on faith ( ecclesiology, salvation) then why will he not reject those on morality?

Today evening I may go for Mass, the second Mass this Sunday, to another liberal church where they have all day Eucharistic Adoration and I will get the same liberal pitch. The only consolation , the main consolation there is that that the Mass there is the consecration of Our Lord Jesus Christ.,

The Mass is an offering to God and it has the strong Presence of Jesus Christ who died to save us from going to Gehenna.It is not enough to believe in Him. One has to live the Gospel teachings of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation(AG 7, LG 14).-Lionel Andrades

HEART ATTACK, WENT TO HELL, JESUS GAVE ONE MORE CHANCE [ NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE ]

Saturday, September 26, 2015

In the last video I listed some of the actual texts which use the irrational reasoning.The Magisterium and the secular media we can see use the irrational reasoning.SoBis an exception toA . Here I would like to show how the irrational reasoning is used in Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome.This is done especially in Ecclesiology courses.

I begin with the Legionaries of Christ University UPRA in Rome, then the Urbaniana University's ecclesiology classes.Then we see the same irrationality being taught at the University of St.Thomas Aquinas Rome and then the same irrationality is encouraged by the St.John Lateran University and the Benedictine Pontifical university of St.Anselm in Rome.

It was because of the teaching of the old ecclesiology at the Franciscans of the Immaculate Philosophy seminary in Rome, that Pope Francis closed it down.No mercy for the old ecclesiology.Pope Francis and Cardinal Walter Kasper also use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The false inference is the basis for their new ecclesiology.They are not aware that without the false inference ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass is the same, it is the old ecclesiology.This is the only rational ecclesiology.Ecclesiology does not depend on the liturgy.

So the Vatican Curia would be in a crisis if the SSPX asked them to cite references in Vatican Council II to support the new ecclesiology.There are none. They were only depending on the irrational premise and inference.Without it LG 16 is not an exception to the old ecclesiology.

For Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary at Econe,Switzerland the SSPX Headquarters, Vatican Council II is not ecclesiocentric since he assumes there are exceptions to the dogma.For him B would contradict A and he would be interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. He uses the irrational premise and inference.It is the same error being made at the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome.

At the Legionaries of Christ's University Pontficial Regina Apostolorum (UPRA) Fr.Nikola Derpich L.C in the teaching of Ecclesiology interprets Lumen Gentium as a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the basis of the new ecclesiology which is being taught at all the Pontifical Universities in Italy.

He will teach students at UPRA that LG 16,LG 14, LG 8 refer to not invisible but visible cases in 2015. So they are explicit exceptions to the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma EENS.1This was the irrational reasoning used by the Magisterium in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. It has conditioned theology and has become a part of the Deposit of the Faith, even though it is irrational, heretical and was not part of the Deposit of the faith before 1808. It contradicts the magisterial teaching on ecclesiology before 1808 and it is all done with the explicit-implicit irrationality.

A lie is being promoted at pontifical universities and no Catholic is opposing it in public

It is unethical academically for a cardinal, bishop or priest-professor of ecclesiology to lie. Yet it is being done officially at the pontifical universities in Rome.The motive is political.

Fr.Peter Paul Saldhana (Urbaniana), Fr.Tomasso Stancati (Angelicum) and many professors project LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 as referring to visible cases in 2105.In this way Lumen Gentium refers to explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.

If they assume that LG 16, LG 8 and LG 14 refer to invisible for us cases, then it means all non Catholics need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.They do not want to teach this.There will be accusations against them if they speak the truth. They will considered Anti Semitic, racist, bigoted etc and will not be allowed to teach by the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Cardinal Vallini, the Vicar General at the Rome Vicariate, who is in contact with the Jewish Left rabbis here.

So now the Catholic professors have to lie. They have to infer, imply and suggest that LG 16, LG 8 and LG 14 are invisible for us in 2015. So they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They also have to assume that these cases exclude the baptism of water, even when they do not know of any such case in real life.

They hide this lie, in ecclesiology class and speak about 'the mystery of the Church'.

___________________________

Urbaniana Pontifical University also changes ecclesiology using the irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of Lumen Gentium,Vatican Council II

At the Pontifical University Urbaniana Rome also they are teaching Ecclesiology and calling it a mystery. This is a new mystery in the Church.They do not know how to present this 'new mystery' in the Church whose source is an irrationality, a false premise and inference, and so they are presenting it with Mariology.

There is no one to question them or correct all this.This is the new ideological presentation of Ecclesiology , the 'new ecclesiology', in the pontifical universities.

The aim is: get rid of the old ecclesiology. The Church does not believe any more in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So Fr.Peter Paul Saldhana ( p.saldanha@urbaniana.edu ) when he teaches this course at the Urbanianum, in his Bliography he includes :

Fr.Tommasso Stancotti O.P at the Angelicum gave us a clue to this 'mystery' in Vatican Council II which has changed the 'old ecclesiology'. He said it was Lumen Gentium.

For Fr.Saldhana too, LG 16( invincible ignorance) , LG 8( elements of sanctification and truth), LG 14 (implicit desire, invincible ignorance) refer to explicit, objective seen in the flesh cases in 2015. Since they are concrete and not abstract cases they become for him exceptions to the old ecclesiology, the extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the popes and saints.

No one is there to correct Fr.Saldhana, Fr.Stancoti, Fr.Francesco Giordana and Mobeen Shahid and tell them LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 could be interpreted as being implicit, invisible and hypothetical. So they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology. There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology. The new ecclesiology is created by assuming LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 are visible to us in real life. This is irrational.It is no surprise that they call all this a 'mystery'.

Fr.Peter Paul Saldhana is a priest from the diocese of Mangalore, India and a professor of Ecclesiology at the Pontifical University Urbaniana from where he obtained his licentiate and doctorate in Theology.

________________________________

Part 3

This semester Fr.Tommaso Stancati O.P teaches the new theology at the Angelicum based on LG 16 being explicit for us instead of implicit

At the Angelicum University in the first cycle of theology for students they are offered a course titled Il mistero della Chiesa ( The Mystery of the Church).It will be a theological introduction to the new ecclesiology according to Vatican Council II( Introduzione teologica alla nuova ecclesiologia cattolica del Concilio Vaticano II) based on Lumen Gentium ( Dogmatic Constitution of the Church)

During this course Fr.Tommaso Stancati O.P will speak on how Lumen Gentium has ushered in a new ecclesiology, since LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 refer to not implicit but explicit cases.For him they are not invisible cases in 2015.So these explicit cases (even though in Heaven) are exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology .They are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him.Ecclesiology has changed for the Dominican priest.There is no more exclusive salvation in the Church. LG 16, LG 8 ,LG 14 refer to non Catholics saved without the baptism of water and are so evidence of salvation outside the Church.

For me, LG 16, LG 8 and LG 14 refer to invisible, implicit and known only to God cases.The text of LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 do not state that these cases are explicit or exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.So I do not make any irrational and non traditional inference. Nor does the text of Vatican Council II in Lumen Gentium 16 mention that these cases exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they cannot be exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

Yet all this will be wrongly inferred by Fr.Stancati and the other Dominican professors.Then they will conclude that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II has a hermenutic of discontinuity with the old exclusivist ecclesiology.So with this irrationality they will teach at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome that there is a new ecclesiology.Students are expected to infer that LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 refer to known cases in the present times since they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

With an irrational inference dogmas and doctrines are being thrown out at the Angelicum University

ForFr.Tommaso Stancati O.P and Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn O.P, Lumen Gentium (LG 16 etc) refers to explicit cases in 2015 saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So Lumen Gentium has ushered in a new theology, there is a new ecclesiology. It replaces the old ecclesiology of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. So for him doctrine and dogma has clearly changed and this is what he teaches even though he does not know of any case in 2015 of someone saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

Similarly Fr.Francesco Giordanoteaches this semester that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so every does not need to formally enter the Church, for example in Rome, for salvation.There is salvation outside the Church. So there is a change in dogma and doctrine for him. Doctrine has developed.He accepts Marchettiism and Cushingism and rejects Feeneyism like the liberals and the Left.

A development of doctrine. This is the name of a course in theology at the University of St.Thomas Aquinas ( Angelicum), Rome.It is called The Nature of Revelation and the Development of Doctrine.

The dogma on salvation has changed and now there are new doctrines expressed in a new ecclesiology. All this was possible by assumeing invisible for us cases are visible in the present times.They did it with the inference. They first assumed there are known cases in the present times of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church then after presuming that these invisible cases were visible, they inferred that these cases were visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.Even though these persons are hypothetical and abstract for us it was inferred that they were concrete and known.This is all irrational. Yet this is the basis for the theology of these professors.I keep writing this same thing every year and they do not nothing about it. While the traditionalists and sedevacantists do not know what is happening still. They use the same irrationality, the same theology to interpret Vatican Council II. However unlike these professors they reject Vatican Council II while the Angelicum accepts Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational inference.

So in this course on the development of doctrine and dogma the bibliography includes a book by J.Hick on the new theology. According to this 'Christian' theology of Religions, other religions are also paths to salvation.This is a new doctrine which became possible with explict for us LG 16, LG 8 etc.This course is taught byFr.Bernard Blankenhorn O.P one of the many new,young Dominican priests who have accepted the new irrational theology.It contradicts Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Hindus, Buddhists,Jews, Muslims and pagans do not have faith and baptism.While Protestants and other Christians do not have Catholic Faith which includes the the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church necessary to avoid mortal sin and preserve Sanctifying Grace.

PRIMO SEMESTRE – FIRST SEMESTER CORSI - COURSES 2015-2016

dP 1881 Fundamental Theology: The Nature of Revelation & the Development of Doctrine 3 ECTS

This course studies some key themes in fundamental theology from a Thomistic perspective, including (1) post-modern critiques of revelation, (2) the nature of revelation, especially the function of history and propositional revelation, and (3) the development of doctrine, with a focus on moral doctrine.

Former Franciscans of the Immaculate seminary faculty priest in U-turn: teaches at the Angelicum University

Fr.Francesco Giordano is encouraged by the diocese of Rome to offer the Traditional Latin Mass since he has adopted the new ecclesiology; Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's ecclesiology.

Fr.Francesco Giordano who was on the faculty of the Franciscans of the Immaculate seminary, Boccea, Rome which Pope Francis closed down, now teaches at the Angelicum University where he would formerly discourage seminarians to go.

In an about turn, the prudent diocesan priest offers a course at the Angelicum titled The Salvation of Non-Christians in St.Thomas Aquinas (SE 2591) according to the Order of Studies 2015-2016.

In a previous post 1 I had mentioned that Fr.Francesco Giordanois a diocesan priest from a diocese outside Rome and now it is learnt, teaches at pontifical universities in Rome.He has specialised inextra ecclesiam nulla salus but with the Marchetti irrationality of being able to know in the present times, people saved without faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.They are allegedly in Heaven, but are seen on earth to be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church.Pure fantasy theology.Classic nonsense.Yet it is official.

Fr.Francesco says he affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils and St.Robert Belarmine and I have quoted him on this blog.Yet he will teach that the dogma has exceptions.

Like cardinals Marchetti and Richard Cushing, he infers that these cases are objective and personally known to be present day exceptions to Robert Bellarmine and Cantate Domino Council of Florence 1441.So in reality he rejects the pre-1949 magisterium and is incardinated as a priest.

So with this double speak ( rigorist interpretation and visible exceptions to the rigorist interpretation) he is allowed to teach and is recognised as a Catholic priest in the diocese, by the Vicariate and Vatican.

He interprets Vatican Council II as a break with St. Robert Bellarmine.The faculty at the University of the Holy Cross, the Opus Dei university in Rome knew all this and let him go ahead with his doctorate degree. Since Fr.Giordano was politically correct.

Fr. Angel Rodriguez Luño,Dean of the Department of Theology

at the Opus Dei university at that time, said this was a sensitive subject and so he would not comment on it.He meant it was sensitive for the Vicariate in Rome and the Vatican,overseen by the Jewish Left.

Fr.Francesco Giordano is encouraged to offer the Traditional Latin Mass since he has adopted the new ecclesiology; Marchetti's ecclesiology.He is in favour with the new Rome.

1.

Can a priest be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, affirm Vatican Council II interpreted according to Feeneyism and not choose incardination ?

2.

SE 2591 The Salvation of Non-Christians in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Corpus 4 ECTS

Throughout the history of Christendom, the preoccupation with salvation has clearly been in

the forefront. Tied to the strong conviction that the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Our

Lord Jesus Christ is our only key to such salvation, much missionary activity and expansion

has ensued. With this in mind, what happens to those many souls who are not Christian and

who have never heard the Good News? If original sin has conditioned every person in the history

of humanity, how was the salvific offer of Christ on the Cross the proper response to all

of humanity throughout time? Since we know that His offer is universal but requires that we

accept it, what happens to those who have not known it or have not accepted it? Who are

these people? What happens to them in rapport to our Savior Jesus Christ? Do they have

hope for salvation? In this course we wish to approach the issue of salvation of non-Christians

using the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, covering themes from the nature of Faith and the

necessity of Baptism to that of invincible ignorance. Since St. Thomas did not address this

theme frequently in his texts, we will see a number of other key themes in his theology which

will open the way to help answer these questions.

F. GIORDANO Wed. 10.30-12.15

_______________________________________

Part 4

What is Mobeen going to teach?

He is not willing to say Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation and Muslims do not have it.

He is not going to teach that all Muslims are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).

He is not going to say that LG 14 says those who 'know' about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell.Muslims in Italy 'know'.The prophet Mohammad and his companions 'knew'.

So what is Prof. Mobeen Shahid going to teach about Islam and the Catholic Faith , at the I.S.S.R Ecclesia Mater,Rome when in public he is not willing to speak the truth? 1

He is not affirming Vatican Council II.He is denying Vatican Council II in public and yet his mandatum;his canonical status to teach, has not been revoked by Cardinal Agostino Vallini, Vicar General, Rome (Vicariato).

Instead, its because he denies Vatican Council II that Mobeen Shahid is given the canonical status by Cardinal Vallini, to teach theology at the Ecclesia Mater of the Rome Vicariate.

Mobeen knows theology and yet he is denying the Faith.

For me all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the path to Hell according to the Catholic Church ( Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 , Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441etc).

I do not know of any exception in 2015 to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II which says all need ' faith and baptism' for salvation.

I do not know of any case this year, or in the past,saved with the baptism of desire or baptism of blood and without the baptism of water.I do not know of any one saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8), 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11) and without the baptism of water.I do not know of any one saved without the baptism of water this year, because God is not limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257).

I do not know of any one saved with ' a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate) or 'good and holy things' in other religions(Nostra Aetate) and so would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.

Neither does Mobeen Shahid know of any exception to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Vatican Council II 8AG 7, LG 14).

Mobeen has a doctorate from the Pontifical University John Lateran, Rome and teaches philosophy there and he is denying the Catholic Faith.

If I can affirm the Faith why cannot Mobeen?

Mobeen Shahid is not affirming Vatican Council II and has canonical status.The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (F.I) should protest.

_________________________

Mobeen Shahid is teaching a lie like the other professors at the Pontifical Lateran University, Rome to protect his career. He is encouraged in this by Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the Vicar General in Rome who hands out mandatums , canonical permissions to teach, to Catholic professors who teach a falsehood with the Magisterium's permission.So Mobeen's canonical status has not been revoked.

Mobeen will not affirm Vatican Council II which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).Nor will he affirm the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).He is unable to say that according to Vatican Council II and EENS all Muslims in 2015 need to convert into the Catholic Church formally; with faith and baptism, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

Instead like other obedient professors including priests, he will teach that LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 etc refer to explicit cases, visible in daily life in Rome or elsewhere. These objective cases, for him have been saved with 'faith and baptism' so they are exceptions to the orthodox passages in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 , they contradict the dogma EENS. So these professors teach every one that all Muslims and other non Catholics do not need to formally enter the Church for salvation, since there are exceptions.

Some professors extend the exceptions to most Muslims, others keep it vague.

It's irrational and a falsehood to say LG 16, LG 8, LG 14 etc refer to known cases in the present times.

I have e-mailed these blog posts to Mobeen.Also in the past I have asked him two questions and he would not answer.

How can Dr.Mobeen Shahid, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy ( Phenomenology/ EdithStein/Husserl) reason philosophically that LG 16 refers to explicit cases and so is an objective exception to the dogma EENS and the need for all to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'?

This is the philosophical reasoning taught to students in the Philosophy Department of the John Lateran University Rome by Mobeen and Prof.Angela Ales Bello ?

They both will not answer two questions which I have asked them. They have the mandatum to teach as Catholics.

Mobeen is following general instructions. It is not anything original and different which he is doing as a Catholic professor in Rome.

Professor of theology at Ecclesia Mater, Rome shy to comment on Islam

According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) Islam is not a parth to salvation and Muslims need to formally convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell- but this is not going to be taught to students by a lay professor Mobeen Shahid.

Dr. Mobeen Shahid offers a course on Islamic Mysticism and the encounter between Christianity and Islam in the 2015-2015 semester of the Ecclesia Mater of the Pontifical Lateran University, Rome.The course would be frequented by lay and religious in Rome.It is approved by the Vicariate of Rome.

Dr.Shahid, a Pakistani Assistant professor of Philosophy accepts Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth). However for him LG 16 and LG 8 refer to explicit instead of implicit cases, people who are visible instead of invisible in the present times.So this is an excuse to reject the 'rigoristic interpretation' of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So he will not say that the pre and post Vatican Council II teaching is that all Muslims need to convert for salvation.Instead he will say that LG 16 is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. So all Muslims do not need to convert since there are exceptions for him.This is the officially correct teaching in the Rome diocese. The exceptions( people in Heaven) are persons known, objective and explicit in 2015.Ghosts!

I too accept LG 16 and LG 8 but for me these cases are invisible and known only to God.So they are not objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. So according to the Catholic Church (Vatican Council II) all Muslims in Rome need to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

Over the last ten years or so I have often e-mailed Mobeen and asked him to answer basic questions on the Faith with regard to salvation. He will not. I met him personally in Rome and reminded him about this.He laughed and said "No Comment".

In the bibliography of the course he offers is Fr.Hans Kung's book on Islam.1

_________________________

Part 6

Jesus only without the neccesity of membership in the Church is being taught in theology at St. Anselm Rome

A course on salvation is being taught at the Benedictine St. Anselm University Rome by the theology department which excludes the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.

It presents Jesus without the necessity of formal entry into the Church, with ' faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14, Vatican Council II ) for salvation.The course is taught by E. López-Tello García.This was not the salvation theology of St. Benedict.

Fr. S. Visintin OSB is the Dean of Theology who otherwise affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and says being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma. They are accepted as possibilities known only to God.In other courses in theology Garcia interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past. This would of course only be possible by mixing up the explicit-implicit distinction of LG 16 etc.This is being done officially at other Pontifical universities as if on cue.

Part 7

Pope Francis has still closed the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate seminary and now we know that the issue was not the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM)but ecclesiology.TLM is associated with the old ecclesiology.

The seminarians at the former seminary of philosophy at Boccea, Rome were sent to other pontifical seminaries in Rome.There the ecclesiology is new and based on Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's mistake.Lumen Gentium 16(LG 16) is considered an explcit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the oldecclesiology.

So all seminarians in Rome now, like Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI, have to accept Pope Pius XII's error.They have to use fantasy theology. They have to assume that the dead-saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) are known in the present times.They are objective for us human beings. So they become exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

Hypothetical cases , known only to God, seminarians must affirm, are defacto and personally known in 2015 , to contradict the teaching on all needing to remain in the Church.The things you have to say and do today to be a Catholic priest!

Recently Cardinal Wilfrid Napier and the sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada agreed that we cannot see people in Heaven, in the present times, saved without the baptism of water.Yet the former FFI seminarians have to say they can see the dead. This is if they still want to be priests.

If they do not proclaim this falsehood , then there will be no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the rigorist intepretation of EENS.Ecclesiology will once again be traditional and rational. It wouldnot be politically correct with the Left.

Now the seminarians have to affirm an irrational ecclesiology which suggests that the dead for us, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, are visible, so there is salvation outside the Church. Since allegedly there is known salvation outside the Church every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church for salvation in the present times.

The new irrational ecclesiology is being followed also by the new Salesian Commissar of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

No clarification or help can be expected from the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and the other traditionalists.Since they are also making the same error, which originated during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.It was accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Von Hildebrand, Michael Davis and others.The Marchetti error is part of the curriculum in SSPX seminaries too. It can be read in a book published by the SSPX professor of Ecclesioloy at Econe, Fr.Jean Marie Gleize (Concilio Vaticano II : Un Dibattito Aperto).He has no clue to the cause of the error.

It seemed the same with the former commissar of the FFI, Fr.Fidenzio Volpi OFM cap. He referred to going back to the old ecclesiology as 'crypto Lefebvre'.He did not know what created thenew ecclesiology and assumed it was Vatican Council II.He also could have assumed that the liturgy of the old Mass was responsible for theold ecclesiology.It was not.

Traditionalists with the SSPX and MICM do not want to talk about this issue.Sedevacantists on Twiter get angry when they are shown that Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake.They do not want to discuss this issue any more.It would mean all these years they had made a mistake on Vatican Council II.

Meanwhile, a diocesan priest in Rome, who was a formator at the closed seminary in Boccea and who specialised on EENS academically, is still promoting Marchetti's error.It seems the prudent thing to do.He would give some good homilies at the Church of the Annunziata.

It is now some two years.I have not attended the FFI Traditional Latin Mass at the church of the Annunziata, in Lungotevere, Rome.Pope Francis' ban is still being implemented in that small church.Religious magazines ( Christ to the World) have been suspended and their editorial policy changed.

No mercy for the old ecclesiology.

If any priest says that LG 16 etc are zero cases in Vatican Council II he will get a phone call from the Vicariate, maybe a visit from Bishop Matteo Zuppi, the Sant Egidio auxiliary bishop in Rome, or be contacted by his superior.

Since the Masons have made it a condition that no one should be allowed to interpret Vatican Council II without the Marchetti theology, the Marchetti ecclesiology. Priests have to say that they can see people in Heaven in the present times saved without the baptism of water.

MARCHETTI MODEL OBLIGATORY

Today morning I was talking to a priest who agrees that there are no personally known, physically visible cases of persons saved without the baptism of water today. These cases in Heaven are not visible to us. They are hypothetical cases for us. So they cannot be exceptions to rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is Feeneyism.

If I post the name of the priest here he will get a warning from the Vatican/Vicariate. He knows this.This blog is monitored by the liberals.

So even though he knows there are no exceptions he is still going to interpret Vatican Council II with the Marchetti model.

It is common for priests who offer the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, to use the new ecclesiology, based on Marchetti's wrong premise and inference.Liturgy is then politically correct.

This is politically acceptable for the Vatican even though it is not the truth and not the teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism.

If this priest intepreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism he would be saying that all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics, according to Vatican Council II, need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell.This is Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism.

Professors of theology like Dr.Joseph Shaw, John Lamont and Thomas Pink use the Marchetti model to interpret Vatican Council II. They have received the mandatum to teach theology only because they use Marchetti's model.

Similarly Prof. Robert de Mattei, Corrado Gnerre, Fr.Francesco Giordano and others in Italy, also use the Marchetti model to interpret Vatican Council II.They would not dare intepret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.They would not be allowed to teach.

Any one who studies theology, salvation theology ( soteriology), at a Vatican approved university or seminary, has to use the Marchetti irrationality to interpret the dogma and Vatican Council II.

They can attend/offer the Traditional Latin Mass, but only with the new ecclesiology, since it is official and obligatory.

_______________________

Part 8

Cardinal Kaspar spoke on the “Theological Background of the Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Vision of Pope Francis.” 1

The ecclesiology of Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar is based on the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was assumed that persons in Heaven were visible on earth to be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra eclesiam nulla salus. Pope Francis and Cardinal Kaspar reject the dogma.

Their ecclesiology is also supported by the irrational inference they use in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Visible-for-us Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (Ad Gentes 7). So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the past since there is defacto, known, objectively seen cases of non Catholics, in 2014 ,saved without the baptism of water. Really? Objectively seen deceased persons?LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 all refer to persons now saved and who are known and seen in 2014 on earth with the naked eye for the pope and Cardinal Kaspar. They would have to be seen to be exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation i.e every one needs to the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.

Since there is salvation outside the Church for them ( as if they could provide the name and surname of these ghosts visible on earth) Protestants and Orthodox Christians do not have to convert into the Catholic Church. The visible dead theory is the basis for their theology on ecumenism.This is bad theology. It is based on an irrational premise.

Since the factual mistake of Pope Pius XII shows that the ecclesiology of the Mass in the vernacular is the same as that of the Traditional Latin Mass.

The new ecclesiology, new theology and the theology of religions is based on there being salvation outside the Catholic Church.There is no such known case.This is a factual mistake which has been made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

It is important for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Fischer More College , who have been deprived of the Traditional Latin Mass , to note the error of Pope PIus XII which has entered Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II ,without the irrational premise, supports Fr.Leonard Feeney.

It is crypto Lefebvrian to assume that the deceased-saved are visible on earth in 2014. Since this is the wrong reading of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) .

All traditionalists must affirm Vatican Council II ( without the false premise) . Vatican Council II without the visible-dead premise is as traditional as Fr.Leonard Feeney.

They must continue to reject Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office when it is assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, are always invisible for us.So they are not exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This was an error, a new doctrine which came into the Catholic Church during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.-

__________________________________

Mons. Ignacio Barreiro, Fr.Joseph Kramer FSSP and Fr.Francesco Giordano will not affirm the 'old ecclesiology' in public in Rome.

They offer the Tridentine Rite Mass in Rome and affirm the 'new ecclesiology' even after being infomed. Neither will they provide their name and telephone number , for any one who wants information about the teachings of the Catholic Church.They will not provide this information for a pamphlet which says the Catholic Church teaches that Islam and the other religions are not paths to salvation. They call it being prudent. They mean this in a worldly sense.

They do not want to be persecuted while they will persecute any one who affirms the 'old ecclesiology' and the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Vatican Council II is in accord with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney. They are not going to say this in public.

So here we have the ecclesiology not being dependent on the Traditional Latin Mass as the SSPX believes it is.

Then there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Rome who affirm the dogma on salvation in agreement with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.They support the 'old ecclesiology'. The new ecclesioology would be irrational since it is based on an irrational premise. It uses the dead man walking and visible theory.

So ecclesiology, here depends on the use or omission of a false premise in the interpretation of magisterial documents.This is independent of the liturgy.

________________________________

Part 10

I repeat: the traditional theology( ecclesiology) is every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.

This is compatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) saying all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.

It is compatible with those who say that all salvation comes from Jesus' Sacrifice and it is mediated through Jesus and the Church.

It is compatible since physically we do not know any one in 2013 saved in the so called 'exceptions category' i.e the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc.

If you would acknowledge that physically we cannot see these cases then you could also accept that being saved with a good conscience etc in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to the traditional understanding that every one needs to be a visible member of the Church for salvation, in 2013.

_______________________

Lionel:

'When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.' Could this also include those saved with a good conscience (LG 16),elements of sanctification (LG , seeds of the word (AG), imperfect communion with the church (UR) etc ?

So in 2013 every adult needs Catholic Faith with the baptism of water for salvation, the baptism of water being the only known and repeatable form of baptism ? There are no known exceptions to the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, for salvation?

Michael:

When we profess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we are professing that our Lord instituted one sacrament of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but we are not professing that the baptisms of blood and desire are not included in the one Baptism, for they certainly are, “in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.”

Lionel:

This is one theology.There could be others.If you use the primacy of grace it could be expressed differently.Similalry, if you accept Our Lady as Co Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Grace it is expressed differently. Though the understanding would be the same.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) has the same message when it says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.

All this does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the traditional ecclesiology (theological understanding of Church). For salvation, every one needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance, implicit desire, good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church, etc.

The new theology is false if one assumes there are known exceptions to the traditional understanding of Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. -Lionel Andrades

__________________________-

Part 11

They Vatican is supported by the Jewish Left media but they have no citations for their ‘ecclesiology of communion’, ‘theology of religions’ and ‘non Catholics do not have to convert for salvation’.

The SSPX –Vatican (Ladaria-Morerod) talks were kept secret. This helped the Vatican which has no citations from the Council for their new theories and obligations.

1.Eclesiology of communion :Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Since LG 8 and LG 16 are not explicit they do not contradict AG 7. The Curia cannot cite LG 8 or LG 16 as exceptions. They have no citations from Vatican Council II for their ecclesiology of communion.

One cannot just refer to ‘the spirit of Vatican Council II’ which could mean anything to different Catholics. It could also be used to justify sin.

2.Theology of religions:As mentioned above Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. Since LG 8 and LG 16 are not explicit they do not contradict AG 7.Neither do we know who is saved with the seeds of the Word and imperfect communion with the Church.

AG 7 is in accord with the literal interpetation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are no known exceptions.

Cardinals Ladaria and Koch cannot cite any exceptions from the Council.

3. Jews do not have to convert in the present time :There is no text in Vatican Council II to support this un-biblical theory. This new political view is contradicted by AG 7, the Bible (John 3:5,Mk.16:16), the dogma on salvation etc.

4.Jews are the Chosen People of God : The Bible says Jews need to convert and there is a New Covenant. Nostra Aetate 4,Vatican Council II says Catholics 'are the new people of God'.

_____________________________

The Theological and Spiritual Section of the 50th International Eucharistic Congress has just appealed to the Spirit of Vatican Council II and without any texts says that the focus should be on Jesus and so communion with all Christian denominations. It then assumes that the Holy Spirit is promoting the Church in this direction.(1)

In other words I could in the name of Jesus and the Spirit of Vatican Council II attend a Jehovah's Witness program and in communion with them do street evangelization, distribute sacred pictures of Jesus and also speak about Jesus as understood by their religion.

It also means according to the organisers that the Holy Spirit is denying Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and is saying that for salvation all non Catholics no more need to enter the Church.

Even though Vatican Council II indicates outside the church there is no salvation and there is an exclusive ecclesiocentrism in the Catholic Church, as in the past, it is being said that the Spirit now teaches something different i.e Protestant and Orthodox Christians are not on the way to Hell, unless they convert. Instead, their religions are equal paths to salvation as the Catholic Church. So joint evangelization is being encouraged in the name of Jesus even with those in the mortal sin of faith, in heresy.

Where is the text in Vatican Council II which refers to an ecclesiology of communion?

There is none!

(1)

Promoting the Ecclesiology and Spirituality of Communion

34. In the light of the Second Vatican Council’s ecclesiology of communion that centred on the Person of Jesus Christ, it could be said that the Spirit today is prompting the whole Church in the direction of promoting a spirituality of communion that lets Jesus Christ be seen and encountered.-THE EUCHARIST COMMUNION WITH CHRIST AND WITH ONE ANOTHER Theological and Pastoral Reflections in Preparation for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress. June 10-17 Dublin Ireland.

_________________________

Part 12

Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX ‘s controversial book Is Feeneyism Catholic is available on the Internet and it indicates why the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) does not realize that their error is in ecclesiology, the rejection of ecclesiocentrism and not realizing that Vatican Council II is a traditional Council in agreement with traditional values, including that of the SSPX on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre admitted that a person could be saved in invincible ignorance etc but did not say that these cases were explicitly known to us or that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In the book made available for SSPX seminarians Fr.Laisney who has been associated with the Australian branch of the community writes on the baptism of desire and is critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney just like the liberals.

His oversight is : he assumes that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the baptism of desire or rejected it , he does not realize, is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma.

This is the point missed out by other SSPX priests too and also their bishops.Since they assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the dogma they assume that LG 16, Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the propaganda of Fr.Hans Kung but the error originated with Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston in the 1940’s.

Since the SSPX believes that those saved with a good conscience etc are known to us they assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions etc.

So for the SSPX the Church is no more ecclesiocentric since there are explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

Fr. Peter Scott of the SSPX writes:

Many erudite works (I recommend Father Rulleau’s book, Baptism of Desire and Father Laisney’s new book, Is Feeneyism Catholic? published by Angelus Press, which will be available by the end of May) list texts from the Fathers and theologians, who are unanimous in their teaching about the possibility of baptism of blood and desire.http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/may_01_district_superiors_letter.htm

The Church Fathers are unanimous in their teaching about the possibility of baptism of desire but none of them claim that these cases are explicitly known as Fr. Scott implies. None of them have said that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation. So for Fr. Scott the Church is no more ecclesiocentric. There are known exceptions. No wonder their community is confused on Vatican Council II. They say they accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus but mean there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation.The problem is not with Vatican Council II but their interpretation which is irrational. Since cases saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are unknown to us. They can only be accepted in principle.They cannot be exceptions known to us.

It's now a few years that I have been writing on this subject . No one from the SSPX refutes what I write or even comments.-Lionel Andrades

____________________________

Is the Catholic Church ecclesiocentric SSPX? It cannot be ecclesiocentric if those saved with the baptism of desire are explicitly known and not just accepted in principle.

The Society of St.Pius X professors of ecclesiology need to be asked how can the Church be ecclesiocentric if it is is accepted that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us, instead of being known only to God.

This is the error being taught at SSPX seminaries.The Church Fathers and the Magisterial documents only mention being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire.Neither do they state that the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus has been contradicted.

Neither does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make this claim when it mentions ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible statement'. The text of the dogma is the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed implicit desire is an exception to the dogma then it was a mistake.Since if Fr. Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire, in principle or fact, it is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma.

The SSPX has made an error in ecclesiology and are ‘piutting the blaime’ on Vatican Council II. I can accept Vatican Council II as a traditional Council and affirm the traditional teachings on ecumenism and other religions, which is also held by the SSPX.

The SSPX like the Vatican Curia does not accept the Catholic Church as ecclesiocentric since they think that there are known exceptions, in heaven and on earth, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

Also when they accept that all in general on earth need to enter the Church for salvation, they cannot say that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church, because of the‘exceptions’.

Similarly they believed that all in general at the Assisi interfaith meeting needed to convert into the Church for salvation but could not say all with no known exceptions need to convert.

For the SSPX bishops Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on exclusive salvation when it is really their interpretation that is in error.

They could not point out the error in the International Theological Commission papers during the Vatican-SSPX talks , since like Fr.Luiz Ladaria S.J and Fr. Charles Morerod O.P, the SSPX team assumed that the Church is no more ecclesiocentric.So the error is in ecclesiology, their interpretation , and they assume it is in Vatican Coucnil II with respect to other religions,ecumenism and religious liberty.

___________________________

Fr.Jean Marie Gleize, the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) professor of ecclesiology who also teaches at the SSPX seminary in Econe says:

Note: Father Gleize says : "The past Magisterium affirms that outside the Catholic Church( in the heretical sects and schismatics who are considered as such) there is no salvific value and that Divine Providence does not use these sects as the means of salvation, Vatican II says exactly the opposite " (1)

The past Magisterium has affirmed outside the church there is no salvation and it is Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself who has said that non Catholics can be saved in their religion. So Vatican Council II would be in agreement with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.(2) However Vatican Council II does not state that non Catholics are saved in general in their religion.There is no such text.

If there was such clear text it would contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism.Fr.Gleize is using thefalse premise in the interpretation of LG 8 and UR 3 (p.128).Ad Gentes 7 (3) and Lumen Gentium 14 refer to the ordinary means of salvation(Redemptoris Missio 55) . LG 16( invincible ignorance),LG 8 and LG 3 cannot rationally be considered the ordinary means of salvation.

When Archbishop Lefebvre said that a Hindu in Tibet could be saved in his religion he was speaking about a hypothetical case. We do not know any such case said Fr. Mauro Tranquillo yesterday (4). So if there is someone saved in another religion with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it is not a known exception to the past Magisterial teaching on outside the church there is no salvation.

Archbishop Lefebvre has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is the norm. He accepts the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in his religion and this hypthetical case would not contradict the dogma on salvation.

Fr.Jean Marie Gleize uses the false premise usually in the interpretation of Vatican Council II (5) and this is cited by Cristina Siccardi.(p.128).He interprets Vatican Council II (LG 8 and UR 3) with the false premise.

2.

Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.("Against the Heresies",p.216)

3.Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.4.

Without the False Premise: There are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions.NA 2 is not one of them.

_______________________________________________

Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who says there is an exceptional wayof salvation, as if we know of exceptions in 2013, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has protested the beatification of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXII. He is officially supported by Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the SSPX.

According to the website of the SSPX (N.America) (1):

The serious problems with the beatification of John XXIII and John Paul II, and the difficulties that result now from their canonization, force us to question the soundness of the beatifications and canonizations proclaimed since Vatican Council II, according to a new procedure and unheard-of criteria. Le Courrier de Rome #341 (February 2011) published a study under the title “Beatification and Canonization Since Vatican II”, in which Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of Ecclesiology at the Seminary of Econe, points out three difficulties that show how far our doubts on the question are from being groundless. Here is a summary by the author himself.

Fr. Gleize's summary

Without pretending to give the final word on the matter (for that is reserved to God), we can at least point out three major difficulties that suffice to raise doubts as to the soundness of the new beatifications and canonizations. The first two question the infallibility and certitude of these acts. The third questions their very definition

Fr.Gleize has made a factual error. He has assumed that the dead are visible to us. He then concludes that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So like the SSPX leadership he is critical of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.

The website states:

The 1989 Profession of Faith in effect distinguishes three categories of truths that constitute the object of the teaching of the supreme Magisterium: truths formally revealed and infallibly defined, truths taught authentically, and truths proposed definitively and infallibly because of a logical link or historical connection with formal Revelation.

In the Nicene Creed, which is recited during the Profession of Faith the SSPX leadership and Fr.John Marie Gleize mean there are 'three known baptisms for the forgivess of sins, water,blood and desire'.Reason and faith tell us that there is only one known baptism for the forgiveness of sin. The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God and are not visible to us as is the baptism of water.

So this is a first class heresy of Fr.John Marie Gleize . It also contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement (2012)(2) in which the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is affirmed and it was said that there are no exceptions.

Without the Fr.John Marie Gleize's exceptional way, Vatican Council II is traditional and the SSPX should be welcoming the beatification of the two popes.

Without known exceptions to the defined dogma on salvation there is no new ecclesiology taught in Vatican Council II.

2.

________________________________

Elementary My Dear Watson:The supposed explanation that Sherlock Holmes gave to his assistant, Dr. Watson, when explaining deductions he had made.

Origin

In fact the line doesn't appear in the Conan Doyle books, only later in Sherlock Holmes' films. He does come rather close at a few of points. Holmes says "Elementary" in 'The Crooked Man', and "It was very superficial, my dear Watson, I assure you" in 'The Cardboard Box'. He also says "Exactly, my dear Watson, in three different stories.The phrase was first used by P. G. Wodehouse, in Psmith Journalist, 1915 (1)

_______________________________________

For something to be an exception it has to exist. If something is not there it is not an exception. This is elementary.

If there is a crate of oranges and there is one apple within, the apple in the box is an exception. If it did not exist it would not be an exception. Elementary!

Fr. Jean Marie Gleize of the SSPX in his book on Vatican Council II says there is an exceptional wayof salvation. This would imply that there are known exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation. There are no such known cases! He - does not know anyone saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3). So there are no exceptions! Elementary!

Similarly Archbishop Augustine Di Noia of Ecclesia Deimade an elementary mistake. In an interview with theNational Catholic Register he said that those saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.These cases do not exist in our reality.

Likewise Archbishop Gerhard Muller said that being saved in invincible ignorance is an exeption to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him all do not have to convert into the Church but only those who know. Archbishop Muller does not know who knows and who does not know and will be saved. So why mention it as an exception.It is a possibility yes, but not an exception.

Similarly when the SSPX and SSPX-SO claim there are known exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional teaching on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty they are making an elementary error. There are no such known cases mentioned in Vatican Council II. There are only possibilities.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Michael Voris also made a fundamental error when they claimed Vatican Council II is ambigous. Yes it would be ambigous if you asumed we could see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc.Salvation in Heaven in 2013 is not visible to us on earth.Elementary My Dear Watson.

Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not known cases.So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Tradition and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Elementary My Dear Watson.

_____________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay has said that the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) will return to the Catholic Church when the Church returns to Tradition.He could help by making the books published or distributed by the SSPX error-free which promotes a non traditional, irrational theory.

Fr.Jean Marie Gliezeclaims that inMystici Corporis Pope Pius XII says ' in the exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.' (1) Where is it mentioned in Mystici Corporis that in an exceptional way one can be saved outside the visible limits of the Church?.The preface for this book with the error has been written by Bishop Bernard Fellay. This is an objective error made in the Catholic Church at large and is responsible for the rejection of Tradition.

Then there is a doctrinal error in Cristina Siccardi's, I'nverno della Chiesa dopo Il Concilio Vaticano II-i mutamenti e le cause (Sugarco Edizioni 2013,Milan,Italy).I have e-mailed this message to her but there is no reply.Her book is being sold at the SSPX chapel in Rome.

In Chapter 10 :Le Contraddizioni, le ambiguità, le omissioni( p.128) it is said that the doctrine on the Church, as expresed in Lumen Gentium 8 contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis.

The doctrine on ecumenism Siccardi says as expressed in Lumen Gentium 8 and Unitatis Redintigratio 3 contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in Propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus of Errorsand those of Leone XIII in Satis cognituum and Pope Pio XI in Mortalium animos.

Here are the quotes from Vatican Council II to which she refers:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.-Lumen Gentium 8

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.-Unitatis Redintigratio 3

As I have mentioned in a previous blog post according to the SSPX priests in Italy ,there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so if there are no exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation then there must also be no exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors. The SSPX priests acknowledge that a person can be saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire as a possibility but they are not exeptions.

There are no exceptions mentioned in Lumen Gentium 8 and Unitatis Redintigratio 3, above.We do not know any one saved in 2013 with 'elements of sanctification and grace' (LG 8). Neither do we know any one saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).

So Cristiana Siccardi and Fr.J.M Gleize have assumed that the dead now saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' or in imperfect communion with the Church are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus.

Possibilities are not exceptions. So LG 8 and UR 3 are not exceptions to all non Catholics, Christian and non Christian, needing to enter the Church visibly for salvation. Neither are LG 8 and UR 3 exceptions to AG 7 and LG 14 which states allneed to convert into the Church.Neither Siccardi or Gleize mentions AG 7 which is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors. So we have AG 7 in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to AG 7.

This same error is made in a book published by the Angelus Press of the SSPX (USA). In Is Feeneyism Catholic' ,Fr.Francois Laisney, the SSPX priest assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is a non traditional Catholic doctrine that the SSPX is promoting through its books and it wants the Church to come back to Tradition.

__________________________

The loser was Fr.Jean Marie Gleize

One does not have to be a Dean of Theology to know that there are no visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is something obvious.

At Catholic universities and seminaries today there are professors and students who are saying irrational and incredible things.They have been doing so for the last 60-plus years. An exception is the Dean of Theology at St. Anselm University, Rome.On Oct.15 he said there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.P.Stefano Visinitin OSB (1) has said the obvious; obvious according to reason, but something which is difficult for many priests and professors.

It's obvious that one cannot meet or see people saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but this is so hard for some religious to proclaim in public.

There are no known or unknown exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church has not changed after Vatican Council II, unless, you assume there are exceptions.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Fr.Jean Marie Gleize, who represented the Vatican and the SSPX respectively, in 'doctrinal' talks, did not know the obvious.

They were both using a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.It was not obvious for them.

The loser in a sense was Fr.Jean Marie Gleize and the other SSPX theologians.The Council is traditional and they did not know it because of their obvious mistake.

____________________________________

Father Aldo Rossi , the SSPX Prior at Albano, Italy said on Sunday morning that he would speak with the SSPX District Superior in Italy Don Pier Paulo Petrucci to clarify the phrase 'via eccezionale'(exceptional way) used by Fr.Jean Marie Gleize in his book Vaticano II- Un Dibattito Aperto(Editrice Ichthys) 2013 which is published by the SSPX District Italy, Albano,Rome.It has a preface written by Bishop Bernard Fellay and has been approved by Father Petrucci.

The SSPX Prior and myself agreed that there were no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is also the position of other SSPX Italian priests with whom I spoke to in Rome.

For Fr.Jean Marie Gleize Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known exceptions mentioned in the text of the Council.So Vatican Council II for him, is at odds with the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

I had wanted to speak to the SSPX District Superior in Albano and tell him that there were two fundamental interpretations of Vatican Council II, Cushingism and Feeneyism and that the SSPX was using the irrational and heretical Cushingism, as was Fr.Gleize.

The Council is ambigous if Cushingism is used and it is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities if Feeneyism is used in the interpretation.

When Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre mentioned the Hindu in Tibet who could be saved in his religion, this case according to Cushingism, is known to us in the present times and so is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It would be the 'via eccezionale'. According to Feeneyism this case is not known to us personally and so cannot be relevant or an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So there is no via eccezionale. The baptism of water is the only way of salvation for all in 2013. The baptism of water is given by the Catholic Church to adults with Catholic faith.

So when Vatican Council II refers to a non Catholic who can be saved in his religion (NA 2 etc), there are elements of sanctification and faith in other religions (LG 8), invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16), seeds of the Word...(AG 11) and imperfect communion with the Church (UR), we have possibilities, hypothetical cases, probabilities, what is accepted in principle and in faith but with no known reality. There is no defacto case in the present times.For these cases to be exceptions they would have to be known in 2013 . So every one in 2013, with no known exception, needs Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation ( to go to Heaven and avoid Hell).

There has been no clarification from Fr.Jean Marie Gleize, or Econe or the SSPX (USA), to these blog posts sent to them. The SSPX (USA) makes the same error in a book written by Fr.Francois Laisney and published by the Angelus Press.Fr.Pier Paulo Petrucci has given the imprimatur for a few books in Italian which indicate that there are known exceptions in Vatican Council II to Tradition, there is a via eccezionale.

____________________

Fr.J.M Gleize is no help to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). As a professor of Ecclesiology he should have been protesting at Ecclesia Dei, claiming full canonical status as a right since the Council is traditional on the issues of other religions and Christian communities. He cannot do it now because of his irrational theology, leaving discerning liberals laughing up their sleeve.

Mons.Guido Pozzo (1) has only to be asked three questionsand his common sense answers will end the SSPX's problem.

The questions are

1. We personally do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire ?

2.There is no magisterial document which says we know these cases?

3.Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not state that we know these cases saved in invincible ignorance etc or that they are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

The answer to these three questions by the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, changes a common misunderstanding of Vatican Council II and the documents of Pope Pius XII in particular.

Also the whole Church will now be able to come back to Tradition, meeting the SSPX's second demand.The Church will be able to come back to Tradition since all magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II will be interpreted according to Feeneyism ( no visible exceptions) and not Cushingism ( with visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.).

Catholics will know that the Holy Spirit is rational and that an irrational interpretation with Cushingism is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.A Catholic understanding of what the Magisterium really teaches will have changed.

Then if some one says every one needs to enter the Churchexcept for those in invincible ignorance, elements of sanctification grace, seeds of the Word etc, their informed response will be "This is irrational. We do not know of any of these cases for them to be exceptions in the present times to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation".

If someone still says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they will respond," This is heresy. No Church text claims these cases are known exceptions. This is a personal, popular view. To deny or change an ex cathedra dogma like extraecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. To claim the Nicene Creed says there is not one but three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin is heresy. To claim that the Athanasius Creed says there is known salvation outside the Church is heresy."

This is the issue that Fr.Jean Marie Gleize should take up with Mons. Guido Pozzo.He also needs to upgrade this information in his new books and in his theology classes at Econe.Talks between the Vatican and the SSPX could begin once again since he would be teaching that Vatican Council II is traditionalism when interpreted with Feeneyism not Cushingism. There is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

He could also comment on the irrationality in two of the theological papers of the International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized, which uses Cushingism.